The signatories to the treaty banning chemical weapons include

1. Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (basic)

At the heart of modern international security lies the concept of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). These are defined not just by their immense power, but by their indiscriminate nature—unlike a rifle or a tank, a WMD does not distinguish between a combatant and a civilian. Traditionally, the global community categorizes WMDs into three distinct types, often referred by the acronym NBC: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons.

While all three are devastating, the international community treats them differently. For Biological and Chemical weapons, the global consensus has shifted toward disarmament, which requires states to give up these weapons entirely. This led to the creation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), both of which banned the production and possession of these specific categories of weapons Contemporary World Politics (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 5: Security in the Contemporary World, p.69.

Type of WMD	Primary Mechanism	Global Regulatory Approach
Biological	Living organisms (bacteria, viruses) or toxins.	Disarmament (Total Ban via BWC).
Chemical	Toxic properties of chemical substances.	Disarmament (Total Ban via CWC).
Nuclear	Nuclear fission or fusion; radioactive release.	Arms Control (Regulating possession/testing).

In contrast to the total bans on chemical and biological agents, Nuclear weapons are often viewed through the lens of deterrence. Great powers have generally resisted total disarmament of nuclear stockpiles, preferring "arms control"—agreements to limit the number or types of weapons rather than eliminating them entirely Contemporary World Politics (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 5: Security in the Contemporary World, p.69. However, nuclear weapons pose a unique threat due to radioactive pollution, which releases invisible radiations (from substances like Uranium or Plutonium) that cause long-term deleterious effects on all living organisms Majid Hussain, Environment and Ecology, Chapter 2, p.44.

India’s own security posture reflects the gravity of these threats. While India maintains a "No First Use" policy regarding nuclear weapons, its official doctrine explicitly states that if India or its forces are attacked with biological or chemical weapons, it retains the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Foreign Policy, p.611.

Sources: Contemporary World Politics (NCERT 2025 ed.), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69; Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain, Environmental Degradation and Management, p.44; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Foreign Policy, p.611

2. Early Efforts: The 1925 Geneva Protocol (basic)

To understand the Chemical Weapons Convention, we must first look back at the scars of World War I — often called the "Chemist's War." The horrific use of chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas on the battlefields of Europe led to a global realization: some weapons are too inhumane for civilization. This collective trauma resulted in the 1925 Geneva Protocol (formally known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare). It was a landmark step in disarmament and arms control, which are essential forms of international cooperation Contemporary World Politics, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 5, p.69.

However, the 1925 Protocol had a significant "Achilles' heel." While it strictly prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons in war, it did not prohibit their production, development, or stockpiling. This meant that while nations promised not to pull the trigger, they were still legally allowed to build and maintain massive arsenals of these deadly agents. Furthermore, many countries signed the protocol with reservations, essentially turning it into a "no-first-use" agreement. They reserved the right to retaliate with chemical weapons if an enemy attacked them first — a concept of retaliation that still echoes in modern strategic doctrines Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Foreign Policy, p.611.

The Protocol was organized during an era when the League of Nations was actively trying to facilitate disarmament conferences in Geneva to prevent another global conflict History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Outbreak of World War II and its Impact in Colonies, p.239. Although the 1925 Protocol was a moral victory, its technical loopholes meant the world remained a dangerous place. It laid the foundation, but also highlighted the desperate need for a more comprehensive treaty that would eventually become the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

Sources: Contemporary World Politics, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 5: Security in the Contemporary World, p.69; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Foreign Policy, p.611; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Outbreak of World War II and its Impact in Colonies, p.239

3. Global Disarmament & Arms Control Frameworks (intermediate)

To understand the global disarmament landscape, we must first distinguish between Arms Control (regulating the growth and use of weapons) and Disarmament (the actual reduction or elimination of weapons). In the post-World War II era, the world realized that security isn't just about protecting borders—a concept known as traditional security—but also about Human Security, which protects people from the existential threat of mass destruction Contemporary World Politics, NCERT, Security in the Contemporary World, p.70. This shift led to the creation of robust international frameworks, most notably those targeting Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) stands out as a landmark in this effort. Opened for signature in January 1993, it was designed to be a non-discriminatory, universal treaty aimed at the total elimination of an entire category of WMDs. Unlike some other treaties, the CWC enjoyed widespread support from its inception. Major global powers, including the United States and the Russian Federation, as well as regional powers like India, Iran, and Israel, were among the original signatories who joined when it first opened for signature Contemporary World Politics, NCERT, Security in the Contemporary World, p.69. Today, it has achieved near-universal status with over 190 member states.

India’s participation in the CWC aligns perfectly with its long-standing foreign policy of advocating for global, non-discriminatory disarmament. While India has famously stayed away from treaties it deems unequal—such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to keep its strategic options open—it has consistently supported the CWC Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Foreign Policy, p.610. This is because the CWC applies the same rules to every nation, requiring all signatories to destroy their chemical stockpiles under strict international supervision.

Feature	Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)	Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Nature	Non-discriminatory (Same rules for all)	Discriminatory (Different rules for 'Haves' and 'Have-nots')
India's Status	Original Signatory and Party	Non-signatory
Objective	Total elimination of chemical weapons	Prevention of nuclear spread; limited disarmament

Sources: Contemporary World Politics, NCERT, Security in the Contemporary World, p.69-70; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Foreign Policy, p.610

4. Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) (intermediate)

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), formally known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, is a landmark in international security. Opened for signature in 1972 and entering into force in 1975, it was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban an entire category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). While 'arms control' treaties (like those for nuclear weapons) often just limit or manage stockpiles, the BWC is a disarmament treaty, meaning it requires states to give up these weapons entirely Contemporary World Politics, NCERT (2025 ed.), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69. Despite its historic nature, the BWC has a significant structural challenge: unlike its younger sibling, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the BWC lacks a formal verification mechanism. There is no international 'inspectorate' (like the OPCW for chemical weapons) to visit laboratories and ensure countries are complying. This has led to ongoing diplomatic efforts to strengthen the treaty. However, more than 155 states have acceded to the BWC, including all the 'great powers' Contemporary World Politics, NCERT (2025 ed.), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69. From an Indian perspective, the commitment to the BWC is absolute, but the security environment remains complex. India's Nuclear Doctrine explicitly states that while India maintains a 'No First Use' policy for nuclear weapons, it retains the option to retaliate with nuclear weapons if it is attacked by biological or chemical weapons Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Foreign Policy, p.611. Additionally, India is a member of the Australia Group, an informal forum of countries that, through the harmonization of export controls, seeks to ensure that exports do not contribute to the development of chemical or biological weapons Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum (2019 ed.), After Nehru..., p.795.

Feature	Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)	Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
Year Signed	1972	1993
Primary Goal	Ban production/possession of biological agents/toxins	Ban production/possession of chemical weapons
Verification	No formal international inspectorate	Robust verification through the OPCW

Sources: Contemporary World Politics, NCERT (2025 ed.), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Foreign Policy, p.611; Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum (2019 ed.), After Nehru..., p.795

5. Export Control Regimes: The Australia Group (exam-level)

The Australia Group (AG) is an informal, multilateral export control regime (MECR) aimed at preventing the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons (CBW). Established in 1985 in response to the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War, its primary goal is to ensure that the export of certain chemicals, biological agents, and dual-use production equipment and technology does not contribute to the development of these horrific weapons. Unlike formal treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which ban the use and possession of such weapons Contemporary World Politics, NCERT Class XII, Security in the Contemporary World, p.69, the Australia Group focuses on the supply chain—regulating the trade of materials that have legitimate civilian uses but could be diverted for illicit weaponry.

For a country to be a member, it must demonstrate a commitment to non-proliferation and maintain effective national export controls. The Group maintains common control lists that include chemical weapon precursors, human and animal pathogens, toxins, and plant pathogens, as well as dual-use equipment (like fermenters or specialized ventilation systems). By harmonizing these lists, member nations prevent "regime shopping," where a proliferator might try to buy materials from a country with weaker regulations. While the group is voluntary, its impact is global, as it sets the standard for responsible trade in sensitive technologies.

India's membership in the Australia Group, achieved in January 2018, was a significant milestone in its foreign policy. India became the 43rd member, reinforcing its credentials as a responsible power committed to global non-proliferation standards. This move was part of India's broader strategy to join the four major global export control regimes. As noted in Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru, p.795, India's entry into the Australia Group followed its admission into the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 2016 and the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) in 2017. This membership facilitates India's access to high-end dual-use technologies and strengthens its position in negotiating for entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Feature	Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)	Australia Group (AG)
Nature	Legally binding international treaty.	Informal, voluntary export control regime.
Focus	Banning production, stockpiling, and use.	Regulating trade and dual-use exports.
Scope	Exclusively Chemical Weapons.	Both Chemical and Biological Weapons.

Sources: Contemporary World Politics, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69; A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., After Nehru..., p.795

6. India’s Nuclear Doctrine & Disarmament Policy (exam-level)

To understand India’s strategic posture, we must look at the dual nature of its policy: a commitment to **global disarmament** on one hand, and the maintenance of a **credible nuclear deterrent** on the other. India’s stance is rooted in the principle of strategic autonomy. Unlike many countries that joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), India has consistently opposed these regimes. The reason is not a desire for an arms race, but rather the **discriminatory nature** of these treaties. India perceives them as 'hegemonic' because they divide the world into 'nuclear haves' (the five permanent UN Security Council members) and 'nuclear have-nots,' essentially legitimizing a nuclear monopoly Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Foreign Policy, p.610.

While India refused to sign the NPT and CTBT, it demonstrated its capabilities through nuclear tests in 1974 and again in May 1998 Politics in India since Independence, NCERT Class XII, India's External Relations, p.69. Following the 1998 tests, India formalized its **Nuclear Doctrine**, which is built on the pillar of **No First Use (NFU)**. This means India will only use nuclear weapons in retaliation against a nuclear attack on its territory or forces. However, there is a critical caveat that connects directly to our study of chemical weapons: India maintains the option to retaliate with nuclear weapons if it is subjected to a major attack involving **biological or chemical weapons** Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Foreign Policy, p.611.

India’s approach to disarmament is therefore principled. It supports treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) because the CWC is universal and non-discriminatory — it applies the same rules to everyone. In contrast, it rejects nuclear treaties that create double standards. This distinction is vital for a civil servant to understand: India is not against disarmament; it is against inequality in international law.

Feature of Doctrine	Description
Credible Minimum Deterrent	Maintaining just enough nuclear capability to deter an adversary.
No First Use (NFU)	Weapons are for retaliation only, never for initiating a conflict.
Massive Retaliation	Retaliatory strikes will be designed to inflict "unacceptable damage."
Civilian Control	Only the civilian political leadership (Nuclear Command Authority) can authorize use.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Foreign Policy, p.610-611; Politics in India since Independence, NCERT Class XII, India's External Relations, p.69

7. The OPCW and CWC Mandate (intermediate)

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which entered into force in 1997, is a landmark in international security. While many treaties focus on 'arms control' (limiting the growth of weapons), the CWC is a total disarmament treaty. This means it doesn't just manage the levels of chemical weapons; it mandates that states give up these weapons entirely by banning their development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and use Contemporary World Politics (NCERT 2025), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69. To ensure these rules are followed, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was established in The Hague, Netherlands. The OPCW's primary mandate is to verify that chemical weapons are destroyed and that they never re-emerge. It does this through a unique system of on-site inspections. Unlike many other international bodies, the OPCW has the authority to inspect both military facilities and industrial chemical plants to ensure that 'dual-use' chemicals (which can be used for both commercial products and weapons) are only used for peaceful purposes. One of the CWC's greatest successes is its near-universal membership. Currently, 193 states have acceded to the convention, encompassing almost the entire global community, including all the major powers like the United States, Russia, and India Contemporary World Politics (NCERT 2025), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69. India, as an original signatory, has been a proactive member, successfully destroying its declared chemical stockpile under the rigorous verification regime of the OPCW.

Sources: Contemporary World Politics (NCERT 2025 ed.), Security in the Contemporary World, p.69

8. Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Membership & Signatories (exam-level)

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) stands as one of the most successful disarmament efforts in history due to its near-universal membership. When the treaty was opened for signature in Paris in January 1993, it attracted immediate and widespread support from the global community. Unlike many other international agreements that take decades to gain traction, the CWC was signed by almost all major powers right at its inception. Notable original signatories included the United States, the Russian Federation, India, Iran, and Israel, demonstrating a rare moment of global consensus on the elimination of an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. Today, the CWC has reached a total of 193 states parties Contemporary World Politics, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 5: Security in the Contemporary World, p. 69. This includes all the 'great powers,' which sets it apart from nuclear disarmament treaties where superpowers have traditionally been more reluctant to commit to total elimination. In the CWC framework, states generally fall into two categories: Signatories (those who have signed the treaty expressing intent) and States Parties (those who have ratified or acceded to the treaty, making it legally binding). While the membership is vast, it is important to distinguish between the levels of commitment. For example, Israel is a signatory to the convention but has not yet ratified it, meaning it is not a full State Party. On the other hand, countries like North Korea, Egypt, and South Sudan have neither signed nor acceded to the treaty, remaining outside the international chemical weapons control regime. This high level of participation is a significant leap compared to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which currently has over 155 states parties Contemporary World Politics, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 5: Security in the Contemporary World, p. 69.

Feature	Signatory	State Party (Member)
Definition	A state that has signed the treaty but may not have ratified it domestically.	A state that has ratified or acceded to the treaty and is legally bound by it.
Examples	Israel (signed in 1993, not ratified).	India, USA, Russia (193 countries in total).

Sources: Contemporary World Politics, Textbook in political science for Class XII (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 5: Security in the Contemporary World, p.69

9. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the theoretical framework of global security and arms control, this question tests your ability to identify the specific actors who committed to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). As we discussed in Contemporary World Politics, NCERT Class XII, the CWC was a landmark in disarmament because it sought a near-universal ban on an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. To answer this correctly, you must bridge the gap between knowing the treaty's purpose and recognizing the original signatories—the countries that formally indicated their intent to comply when the treaty opened for signature in 1993.

To arrive at the correct answer, look for the grouping that includes both global superpowers and significant regional powers. Option (A) USA, Russia, India, Iran and Israel is the correct choice. A key nuance to remember is that while Israel is a signatory (it signed the treaty in 1993), it has not yet ratified it. However, since the question specifically asks for signatories, this list is historically accurate. India, as a major proponent of non-discriminatory disarmament, was an original signatory and eventually became one of the first to declare and destroy its stockpiles, showcasing its commitment to the norms you studied in the security module.

UPSC often uses "spoiler states" as traps in these questions. When evaluating the other options, you can use the process of elimination by looking for non-signatories. For example, North Korea (found in Option C) is one of the few countries that has neither signed nor acceded to the treaty, making that option immediately incorrect. Similarly, Syria (Option D) was a long-time holdout and only acceded to the treaty in 2013 under significant diplomatic pressure, meaning it was not part of the original wave of signatories. Identifying these outlier states is a high-yield strategy for navigating complex international relations questions.